The regular meeting of the Larimer County
Board of Adjustment was held in the County Board Hearing Room in the Larimer
County Courthouse, Fort Collins, Colorado at 7:00 p.m., April 25, 2006. Members Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund, Jean Christman, Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn
King were present. Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al
Kadera and Casey Stewart and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
reading of the Minutes of the meetings of February 28, 2006 and March 28, 2006 were dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

File No: #06-BOA0596
(Evans Setback Variance)

Owner: Alan P.
Evans

Applicant: Alan P. Evans

Property Description:

Lot 1, Horsetooth Lake Estates

The Application of Alan Evans, requesting
two variances was presented to the Board. The Application requested a setback
variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed single family
dwelling to be located 85 feet from the right-of-way center of County Road 38E,
a major collector, rather than the required minimum of 125 feet and a variance
to be located 10 feet from an interior subdivision road rather than the
required minimum of 25 feet in the O-Open zone.

The Board having heard the testimony and
arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being
fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

Findings

1. This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper
of general circulation as required by law.

2. The property location is
NE 6-6-69; 4701 W. County Road 38E, located southwest of intersection of CR 38E
and Shoreline Drive, near Inlet Bay.

3. Site data is as follows:

a. Land Area: 0.4
Acres

b.
Proposed Use: Single Family Dwelling

c.
Existing Zoning: O-Open

d.
Surrounding Zoning: O-Open

e.
Existing Land Use: Vacant

f.
Surrounding Land Uses: Residential

g.
Access: County Road 38E and Catalina
Drive

4. The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling
on the property, which is currently vacant (Lot 1, Horsetooth Lake Estates).
The proposed dwelling would be located 85 feet from the right-of-way center of County
Road 38E, which is classified as a major collector and requires a setback of
125 feet. The dwelling would also be located 10 feet from an interior
subdivision road (Catalina Drive) which requires a setback of 25 feet. The
applicant requests a variance from the 125-foot and 25-foot setback
requirements from a major collector and an interior subdivision road,
respectively.

5. There are no major issues are concerns with the
variance requests.

6. There were no persons in
attendance who objected to the requests.

7. The applicable review criteria for the variances
have been met as follows:

A. There
are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic
conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, or other
extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property,
that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variances are
requested.

The shallow
character of the lot combined with the front setback requirement to the west
and the current road setback requirements from County Road 38E to the east
limit the area available for the proposed dwelling. When all the lot and road
setback requirements are considered, there is no room for a building on the
property.

B. The
special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the
applicant or the current owner.

The special
circumstances stated above have existed on the lot for many years and have not
recently occurred due to any actions or inactions of the owners. The lot was
platted in 1964.

C. The
strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions listed
above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in
the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an
unnecessary and undue hardship.

There are other
buildings along County Road 38E and in the immediate vicinity that do not meet
the required front and/or road setback distances because they were either
granted a variance or were built prior to the setback requirements. If denied
these requests, the owners would be denied a similar right.

D. Granting
the variances is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or
structure.

Granting the
requested variances is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to
construct and use the proposed single-family dwelling. Any proposed building
would require some sort of setback variance when all the lot and road setback
requirements are considered.

E. Granting
the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property
in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

It is not anticipated
that granting the variances would adversely affect any neighbors or their
property. No objections have been received by any of the neighboring property
owners at this time.

F. Granting the variances
is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

Granting the
setback variances requested would not impair the intent and purpose of the Code
or Master Plan.

G. The
recommendations of referral agencies have been considered

No objections were made by other agencies or departments.

8. To approve these requests would promote the
harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people
of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general
welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would
be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use
Code.

Kent Bruxvoort moved and Eric Berglund seconded the Motion that
the Board adopt the following Resolution:

Resolution

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said
Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though
fully set forth herein;

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicant be and he hereby is granted his
variances as requested subject to the following conditions:

1. Failure to comply with
any conditions of the variance approval may result in reconsideration of the
use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

2. This approval shall automatically
expire in one year unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent
with the approval.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicant Alan P.
Evans not act upon the setback variances granted herein by using the
above-described property in accordance with these granted variances within one
year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void
and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board,
and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an
extension of time shall be made by Application to this Board on or before one
year from the date of this Resolution. If this action involves approval of a
use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property,
and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall
only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of
County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the
resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Eric
Berglund, Jean Christman, Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn King voted in favor of the
Resolution. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variances
were granted subject to conditions.

File No: #06-BOA0597
(Bauer Setback Variance Extension)

Owner: Chris and
Jessie Bauer

Applicant: Chris and Jessie Bauer

Property Description:

Lot 3, Cushman’s Lakeview Development,
1st Filing.

The Application of Chris and Jessie Bauer,
requesting an extension was presented to the Board. The Application requested
a one year time extension upon the above-described property to allow compliance
with the approval of the original Bauer Setback Variance (#05-BOA0541). The
variance allowed for final setback of 36 feet from the centerline of a stream,
rather than the required minimum of 100 feet in the O-Open zone.

The Board having heard the testimony and
arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being
fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

Findings

1. This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper
of general circulation as required by law.

2. The property location is
SW 31-7-69; 4116 Ann Street, located west of Inlet Bay on Horsetooth Reservoir.

3. Site data is as follows:

a. Land Area: 0.31
Acres

b. Proposed Use: Single
Family Dwelling

c. Existing Zoning: O-Open

d. Surrounding Zoning: O-Open

e. Existing Land Use: Vacant

f. Surrounding Land Uses: Residential

g. Access: Ann
Street

4. The applicant was granted a variance (05-BOA0541) by
the Board of Adjustment in April 2005. The application was for a variance from
the stream setback requirement. The standard expiration period for a variance
is one year from date of approval. The applicant is requesting more time, one
year, to act on the variance. Applicants state that they are in the process of
selling the property to an adjacent property owner. The new owners contemplate
building a storage shed or garage in the near future. Extending the time for
action on the variance will assist the new owners in obtaining building
permits. Applicants also state that with respect to the outstanding waterline
issue, they are placing funds in a trust with Spring Canyon Water District at
the time of sale to cover the cost of removal and replacement of the waterline
at a time convenient to the new owners.

5. The Larimer County Development Services Team sees no
major issues and has no concerns with this extension request. All other
conditions of the original variance will remain in effect with this extension
request.

6. There were persons in
attendance who objected to the request primarily due to the unsightly nature of
the property caused by various vehicles, junk and debris.

7. The Larimer County Engineering Department and
Department of Health and Environment have no objections to the request.

8. To approve this request would promote the harmonious
development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer
County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the
applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance
with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

Eric Berglund moved and Evelyn King seconded the Motion that
the Board adopt the following Resolution:

Resolution

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said
Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though
fully set forth herein;

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that Applicants be and they hereby are
granted their variance extension as requested subject to the following
conditions:

1. The applicant shall
resolve the water line issue and present evidence of such to the Planning Department
at time of or prior to building permit application.

2. Failure to comply with
any conditions of the variance approval may result in reconsideration of the
use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

3. This approval shall automatically expire on April 12, 2007, unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with the
approval.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicants Chris
and Jessie Bauer not act upon the variance extension granted herein by using
the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance on or
before April 12, 2007, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further
force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of
time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall
be made by Application to this Board on or before April 12, 2007. If this
action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise
permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is
divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any
such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion
determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this
action.

The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Eric
Berglund, Jean Christman, Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn King voted in favor of the
Resolution. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance extension
was granted subject to conditions.

File No: #06-BOA0590
(Bertrand Setback Variance)

Owner: Andrew and
Kristine Bertrand

Applicant: Gaylen Baker

Property Description:

Lot 7A, Amended Plat of Lots 5, 6, 7,
and 8, Morrill Subdivision, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FROM: Old Republic
National Title Insurance Co. Order FC25048425-2

The Application of Gaylen Baker,
requesting a variance was presented to the Board. The Application requested a setback
variance upon the above-described property to allow a single family dwelling to
be located 3 feet from the edge of a road easement, rather than the required
minimum 25 feet in the FA-1 zone.

The Board having heard the testimony and
arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being
fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

Findings

1. This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper
of general circulation as required by law.

2. The property location is
SE 29-7-69; 3515 Centennial Drive, located ¾ mile north of intersection of CR
23 and CR 38E.

3. Site data is as follows:

a. Land Area: 1.0
Acre

b. Proposed Use: Single
Family Residential

c. Existing Zoning: FA-1
Farming

d. Surrounding Zoning: FA-1
Farming

e. Existing Land Use: Single
Family Residential

f. Surrounding Land Uses: Residential

g. Access: Centennial
Road (CR23) via private road

4. The
existing residence was constructed in 1980. A carport was added in the summer
of 2005 without a building permit. The existing house encroaches 2 feet into a
private road easement that is 40 feet wide and provides access to lots in the
Morrill Subdivision. The carport currently encroaches 17 feet further into the
road easement. The applicants have proposed to trim the carport back to the
edge of the retaining wall. With this modification, the carport would encroach
15.5 feet into the current, platted road easement. The applicant has submitted
two applications to the Planning Department to resolve the situation. One
application is for a setback variance that would allow the carport (as trimmed
back) to be 4.5 feet from the edge of the road easement provided the easement
vacation application is approved. The second application, to be heard by the
Board of County Commissioners, is to vacate a portion of the road easement.

5. The existing dwelling received a variance in 1979
for a location 20 feet from the center of the road easement. Since the road
easement is a total of 40 feet wide, the house was approved to be on the edge
of the road easement.

6. There were no persons in
attendance who objected to the request. Applicant states that five neighbors
support the request.

7. The applicable review criteria for the variance have
been met as follows:

A. There
are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic
conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, that are peculiar
to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

The lot is on a
steep slope and the area available for a carport is limited. Safety hazards
for vehicles traveling along the roadway can be minimized by installation of bollards.

B. The
special circumstances are not the result of action or inaction by the
applicant.

The geography of
the lot which makes parking certain vehicles (e.g., trucks) in the garage is not
the result of action or inaction by the applicants.

C. The
strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the code listed
above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in
the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an
unnecessary and undue hardship.

A setback variance
was granted for the dwelling to the north of this subject lot. The variance
allowed the dwelling to be placed 30 feet from the center of the road easement
(10 feet from the edge). In many instances where topography limits the space
for buildings, such as mountainous terrain, garages are not built as part of
the principal building that allows sufficient room for larger vehicles.

D. Granting
the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or
structure.

Granting the
variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structure.

E. Granting
the variance will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity of the
subject land or structure.

The variance would
not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The bollards will reduce
hazards to motorists. Also, the carport actually would break the fall of
vehicles that might drive off the road and over the retaining wall

F. Granting the variance is
consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

Granting the variance is consistent
with the purposes of the Land Use Code and Master Plan by allowing applicants
fuller use of their property.

8. To approve this request would promote the harmonious
development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer
County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the
applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance
with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

Kent Bruxvoort moved and Evelyn King seconded the Motion that
the Board adopt the following Resolution:

Resolution

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings
being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set
forth herein;

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicant be and he hereby is granted
his setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval shall automatically expire in one year
unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with the approval.

2. Applicants must comply with the Poudre Fire
Authority conditions 1 and 2 as set out in its letter to Casey Stewart dated April 24, 2006.

3. Applicants must obtain
approval of the Board of County Commissioners for vacation of the necessary
private road easement. See planning file 06-S2536.

5. Failure to comply with
any conditions of the variance approval may result in reconsideration of the
use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicant Gaylen
Baker not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the
above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one
year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void
and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board,
and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an
extension of time shall be made by Application to this Board on or before one
year from the date of this Resolution. If this action involves approval of a
use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property,
and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall
only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of
County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the
resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Jean
Christman, Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.
Member Eric Berglund voted against the Resolution. The Resolution received the
four votes needed to pass. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and
the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

File No: #06-BOA0588
(Bowen Setback Variance)

Owner: Zack Bowen

Applicant: Zack Bowen

Property Description:

The SE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 30,
Township 8 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., together with an
easement for a right-of-way over a strip of land 30.0 feet wide for access road
lying 15.0 feet on each side of the following described centerline and located
in the SW ¼ of NE ¼, and the SE ¼ of NW ¼, Section 30, T. 8 N. R. 70 W.,
considering the North line of the SW ¼ of NE ¼ of Section 30, Township 8 North,
Range 70 West of the 6th P.M. as bearing N. 89°48’ W., and with all
bearings herein relative thereto; beginning at a point on the Southwesterly
line of the right-of-way of the Rist Canon County Road which bears S. 77°39’ W.
69.04 feet from the NE 1/16 corner (NE corner of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼) of said
Section 30; thence along said centerline N. 89°48’ W. 45.00 feet to the
beginning of a curve to the left whose radius is 78.89 feet; thence along the
arc of said curve to a point resultant from a long chord which bears S. 63°18’45”
W. 71.35 feet; thence along said centerline S. 36°25’30” W. 54.17 feet to the
beginning of a curve to the right whose radius 64.64 feet; thence along the arc
of said curve to a point resultant from a long chord which bears S. 74°07’45”
W. 79.07 feet; thence along said centerline N. 68°10’ W. 129.15 feet to the
beginning of a curve to the left whose radius is 138.13 feet; thence along the
arc of said curve to a point resultant from a long chord which bears N. 84°19’
W. 76.84 feet; thence along said centerline S. 79°32’ W. 46.51 feet to the
beginning of a curve to the right whose radius is 249.27 feet; thence along the
arc of said curve to a point resultant from a long chord which bears N.
89°07’30” W. 98.05 feet; thence along said centerline N. 77°47’ W. 240.23 feet
to the beginning of a curve to the left whose radius is 276.64 feet; thence
along the arc of said curve to a point resultant from a long chord which bears
S. 88°01’ W. 135.73 feet; thence along said centerline S. 73°49’ W. 75.00 feet
and again S. 85°20’ W. 128.26 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right
whose radius is 79.48 feet; thence along the arc of said curve to a point
resultant from a long chord which bears N. 80°32’30” W. 38.79
feet; thence along said centerline N. 66°25’ W. 59.49 feet to the
beginning of a curve to the left whose radius is 121.86 feet, said point
bearing S. 58°46’ E. 44.02 feet from the CN 1/16 corner (NW corner of the SW ¼
of NE ¼) of said Section 30; thence along the arc of said curve to a point
resultant from a long chord which bears S. 34°44’ W. 239.13 feet; thence along
said centerline S. 44°07’ E. 66.30 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left
whose radius is 46.10 feet; thence along the arc of said curve to a point
resultant from a long chord which bears S. 12°31’ W. 77.00 feet; thence along
said centerline S. 69°09’ W. 134.54 feet to the beginning of a curve to the
right whose radius is 104.98 feet; thence along the arc of said curve to a
point resultant from a long chord which bears N. 85°23’ W. 90.28 feet; thence
along said centerline N. 59°55’ W. 65.08 feet to the beginning of a curve to
the left whose radius is 53.84 feet; thence along the arc of said curve to a
point resultant from a long chord which bears N. 89°01’30” W. 52.38 feet;
thence along said centerline S. 61°52’ W. 86.44 feet to the beginning of a
curve to the left whose radius is 94.22 feet; thence along the arc of said
curve to a point resultant from a long chord which bears S.
38°51’45” W. 73.64 feet; thence along said centerline

S. 15°51’30” W. 171.62 feet to the
beginning of a curve to the right whose radius is 43.85 feet; thence along the
arc of said curve to a point resultant from a long chord which bears S.
71°51’15” W. 72.70 feet; thence along said centerline N. 52°09’ W. 55.12 feet
to the beginning of a curve to the left whose radius is 55.45 feet; thence
along the arc of said curve to a point resultant from a long chord which bears
S. 80°35’30” W. 81.45 feet, thence along said centerline S. 33°20’ W. 130.80
feet to the beginning of a curve to the left whose radius is 97.50 feet; thence
along the arc of said curve to a point resultant from a long chord which
bears S. 01°43’30” W. 102.20 feet; thence along said
centerline S. 29°53’ E. 90.96 feet; and again S. 41°18’ E. 121.95
feet; and again S. 31°44’ E. 47.03 feet; and again S. 43°47’ E. 185.14 feet;
and again S. 51°01’ E. 234.56 feet to a point on the South line of the NW ¼ of
said Section 30 which bears N. 89°52’ W. 371.61 feet from the center ¼ corner
of said Section 30; subject to the easement in and the right of FREDERICK J.
BODENHAM, JUDITH L. BODEMHAM, HOWARD R. FLECKNER, ELSIE B. FLECKNER, RICHARD D.
BRAZILL and JAQUELINE J. BRAZILL, their heirs, successors, grantees and assigns
to use said right-of-way.

The Application of Zack Bowen, requesting
a variance was presented to the Board. The Application requested a setback
variance upon the above-described property to allow a 3-sided storage shelter
to be located 16 from the edge of a road easement rather than the required
minimum 25 feet in the O-Open zone.

The Board having heard the testimony and
arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being
fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

Findings

1. This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper
of general circulation as required by law.

2. The property location is
NW 30-8-70; 11419 W. CR 52E (Rist Canyon Road), located about six miles west of
Bellvue.

3. Site data is as follows:

a. Land Area: 40
Acres

b. Proposed Use: Agricultural,
Residential

c. Existing Zoning: O-Open

d. Surrounding Zoning: O-Open

e. Existing Land Use: Agricultural,
Residential

f. Surrounding Land Uses: Residential,
Recreational

g. Access: Fire
Route 7 (off of CR 52E)

4. The applicant proposes to construct a 3-sided
equipment storage shelter (30’x 20’) accessory to the applicant’s tree farm and
single family dwelling. Applicant would use the shelter to store his
bulldozer, wood splitter and family car in the shelter. The proposed shelter would
be located south of the dwelling, 16 feet from the edge of the 30-foot wide
road easement (Fire route 7) that winds through the property (40 acres). The O-Open
zoning district requires a 25 foot setback from the edge of a road easement.

5. There were no persons in
attendance who objected to the request.

6. The applicable review criteria for the variance have
been met as follows:

A. There
are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic
conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, that are peculiar
to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

The property
consists of mountainous terrain and is heavily forested which limits areas
available for buildings. There is also a power pole and overhead power line
that the applicant seeks to avoid in locating the building. Because applicant
intends to use the building in conjunction with the single-family residence
(i.e., storage of the family car, it is important that the building be in
reasonable proximity of the residence and the road. Available site in
proximity to the residence and road are limited.

B. The special
circumstances are not the result of action or inaction by the applicant.

The mountainous
terrain, trees and road location are not the result of action or inaction by
the applicant.

C. The
strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions listed
above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in
the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an
unnecessary and undue hardship.

Property owners in
mountainous forested areas are often limited in their ability to locate
structures and require variances to build. To deny applicant the requested
variance would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship and deny him the relief
granted to other property owners with similar topographical constraints.

D. Granting
the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or
structure.

Because suitable
sites are limited, granting the variance to allow the structure to be located
as proposed is the minimum action that will allow use of the land and
structure.

E. Granting
the variance will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity of the
subject land or structure.

It is not
anticipated that granting the variance would adversely affect any neighbors or
their property. No objections have been received by any of the neighboring
property owners at this time.

F. Granting
the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master
Plan.

Granting the
variance is consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code and Master Plan
because it allows applicant to make fuller use of the property.

7. To approve this request would promote the harmonious
development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer
County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the
applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance
with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

Evelyn King moved and Jean Christman seconded the Motion that
the Board adopt the following Resolution:

Resolution

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said
Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though
fully set forth herein;

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicant be and he hereby is granted
his setback variance as requested.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicant Zack
Bowen not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the
above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one
year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void
and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board,
and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an
extension of time shall be made by Application to this Board on or before one
year from the date of this Resolution. If this action involves approval of a
use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property,
and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall
only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of
County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the
resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Eric
Berglund, Jean Christman, Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn King voted in favor of the
Resolution. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance
was granted.

File No: #06-BOA0595
(Mucklow Setback Variance)

Owner: Sylvia Mucklow

Applicant: George Kidder

Property Description:

Lot 9, Mummy Range Exemption Plat

A tract of land located in the SE ¼ of
the SW ¼ of Section 20 and the N ½ of the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 29,
Township 7 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County,
Colorado: Beginning at a point which bears N 89°40’ E 240.00 feet; and again N
12°15’ E 112.87 feet from the Southwest corner of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of said
Section 20, and run thence N 12°15’ E 327.13 feet; thence N 23°30’ W 420.00
feet; thence N 56°50’ E 210.00 feet; thence S 75°06’ E 160.00 feet; thence S
12°29’15” E 228.54 feet; thence N 78°58’ E 75.00 feet; thence N 00°24’ W 270.00
feet; thence N 52°50’ E 175.00 feet; thence S 45°24’45” E 507.68 feet; thence S
01°00’ W 242.00 feet; thence S 88°50’45” W 303.64 feet; thence S 22°24’ W 107.00
feet; thence S 14°48’ W 670.00 feet; thence N 39°32’ W 525.95 feet to the point
of beginning, containing 14.2664 acres more or less; together with and subject
to all rights of ingress an egress as of record which may be in aid of use of
said lands and reserving a general right-of-way for ingress and egress to all
other owners of land deriving title through the Grantor for an land within the
NW ¼ of SW ¼; SE ¼ of SW ¼; SW ¼ of SE ¼; NE ¼ of NW ¼ of SE ¼; and S ½ of NW ¼
of SE ¼ of Section 20; the NE ¼ of NW ¼ of Section 29; all in Township 7
North, Range 73 West, 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado; said
reservation being made as a covenant which shall run with the herein devised
lands and shall be binding upon the Grantees herein, their heirs and assigns.

The Application of George Kidder,
contractor for Sylvia Mucklow, requesting a variance was presented to the
Board. The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described
property to allow a proposed cabin to be located 60 from the center of a river
(South Fork of Poudre River) rather than the required minimum of 100 feet in
the O-Open zone.

The Board having heard the testimony and
arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being
fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

Findings

1. This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper
of general circulation as required by law.

4. The applicant proposes to construct a cabin for
seasonal use on the property, which is currently vacant. The proposed cabin would
be located 60 feet from the center of the South Fork of the Cache La Poudre River.
The O-Open zoning district requires a 100 foot setback from the center of the
river. Applicant has camped on this site for many years. The proposed location
is sufficiently off road so as to not be visible by motorists and not to be
subjected to road dust. It is in a natural clearing that would avoid removal
of the willows and would preserve other vegetation and wildlife. The area also
affords a natural windbreak and would not require any excavation. The knoll on
the property is not a good location for the cabin due to possible drainage into
the Poudre River. The bottomland on the property is swampy and has ponds.

5. There were no persons in
attendance who objected to the request.

6. The applicable review criteria for the variance have
been met as follows:

A. There
are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic
conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, or other
extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property,
that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

The property
consists of generally level, river bottom terrain which is heavily forested
with willows and other riparian vegetation. There are limited building sites.
The proposed location is the best based on the topography and other features
described in paragraph 4 above.

B. The
special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the
applicant or the current owner.

The topography of
the land and the natural clearing are not the result of actions or inactions by
the applicant.

C. The strict
interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions listed above
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the
area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary
and undue hardship.

There are other
cabins in the area, two of which are less than 60 feet from the stream and two
of which are less than 80 feet from the stream.

D. Granting
the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or
structure.

Granting the
variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structure
due to the limited building sites.

E. Granting
the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property
in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

It is not
anticipated that granting the variance would adversely affect any neighbors or
their property. No objections have been received by any of the neighboring property
owners at this time.

F. Granting
the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master
Plan.

Granting the
variance is consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code and Master Plan
because it maintains and enhances the property values of the existing area as
well as preserves the right of the property owner to build a seasonal cabin,
promotes economic stability of the use of this rural land and the natural
setting, prevents overcrowding by selecting a building site location that
blends with the existing natural area and respects area neighbors, requires no
services that will effect any existing roads, will preserve environmental
resources and will not post a danger to life or property from flooding,
geologic hazards or wildfire.

G. The
recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

No objections were
offered from other agencies or departments.

7. To approve this request would promote the harmonious
development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer
County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the
applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance
with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

Kent Bruxvoort moved and Evelyn King seconded the Motion that
the Board adopt the following Resolution:

Resolution

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said
Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though
fully set forth herein;

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicant and owner be and they hereby
is granted his setback variance as requested.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicant George
Kidder and owner Sylvia Mucklow not act upon the setback variance granted herein
by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance
within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null
and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to
this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application
for an extension of time shall be made by Application to this Board on or
before one year from the date of this Resolution. If this action involves
approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the
subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then
this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such
division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine
which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Eric
Berglund, Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.
Member Jean Christman voted against the Resolution. The Resolution received the
four votes needed to pass. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and
the setback variance was granted.

***

By Motion duly made, seconded and
carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried
the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________,
2006.